Wednesday, September 29, 2010

The Transsexuality of Schizophrenia; Anti-Oedipus Part 4

Man, Woman, God, 90° tilted square.

The last post ended by highlighting the idea of "Schizoanalysis" that D&G would eventually elaborate on. With their criticism of Oedipus, they are on their way towards this analysis, and the criticism that happens until the "formal" (if it is formal) elaboration of "schizoanalysis" will prove to be important towards understanding schizoanalysis. This idea of schizoanalysis will then first find it's grounds in the criticism of the classical Oedipus structure elaborated on in the past posts and distinguished by D&G as the paralogism of psychoanalysis. The classically defined schizophrenic will obviously be of issue. The easy pathologization of this "condition" will be elaborated on in a different way than one that is understood by psychoanalysis. The main distinction in this post will be between syntheses of contradictory elements and disjunctive syntheses that are affirmed by the schizophrenic according to D&G. This terminology will be used in distinction to psychoanalysis' Oedipus method of seeing a person as having contradictory elements that need to be resolved (always in search for a "cure"). Schizoanalysis will end up finding itself as a method that makes refuse out of the idea of a "cure." Lets move to the beginnings of this new analysis by way of re-understanding the classically understood schizophrenic who affirms an infinite amount of identities according to D&G.

"It would be a total misunderstanding of this order of thought if we concluded that the schizophrenic substituted vague syntheses of identification of contradictory elements for disjunctions...He does not substitute syntheses of contradictory elements for disjunctive syntheses; rather, for the exclusive and restrictive use of the disjunctive syntheses; he substitutes an affirmative use." If we can understand what D&G are saying here then it will go a long way towards understanding the theory of Anti-Oedipus. Phenomenology could find its way towards using these concepts if it were concerned with overturning the practice psychoanalysis. First off we need to understand the concept of a "vague syntheses of identification of contradictory elements." What D&G are implying here is an experience where the body (including the mind, that for D&G is body) synthesizes raw hyletic experience into a contradictory elements. When this happens, a process happens (understood most in depth by Husserlian phenomenology) whereby what was at once vague then becomes conceptualized into binary categories, meaning the logic of "either/or." Something is identified as "not this" and something else is identified as "this." For example, I can say (by elaboration), "This here is a tree, but this over here is not a tree, it's a fox." This proceeds into further classifications and categories up to the point of the ego. The ego forms separations that will define itself as this and not that. This is neurotisism for D&G; essentially the need to live as an opposition to something, guided by the paternity of Oedipus. What is not neurotic is the schizophrenic who doesn't substitute pure experience for this formalized/oedipalized experience. To be sure though, the pure experience for the schizophrenic is synthesized, just not oedipalized. What's synthesized in pure hyletic experience for the schizophrenic are disjunctions; pure disjunctions, meaning lateral separations, not vertical separations. Experience doesn't form a personality, but a multitude of differences that roam the stick. The formed disjunctions of experience stay in place as disjunctions that never need to be "fulfilled" into something else. The schizophrenic takes the disjunctively formed experience and affirms it, not consciously, but schizophrenically, meaning there's nothing wrong with being any different disjunction at any time. There's nothing wrong with not being a me. In other words, the schizophrenic doesn't operate off of the need to be a specific disjunction (person) that would then do everything in its power to further establish this personality (me-hood) by seeking the approval of others, whereby the approval and disapproval of others would form injunctions and non-injunctions that would guide that person, thereby making them neurotic and oedipalized. The injunction function of oedipus is not the case for the schizophrenic. The schizophrenic doesn't feel bad that they aren't a "whole" personality, a limited and definite personality. They don't feel bad because they're angry at someone who's trying to oedipalize them, they just don't have the instinct for specificity-formation. Instead of specificity, where opposition by way of the negative personality occurs, non-specificity occurs as affirmation. What is formed in experience as disjunctive parts (partial objects) is affirmed, not negated. Things don't get classified into "I'm not this" in the schizophrenic, instead, the schizophrenic says to the analyst: "Human being? I'm a fucking dinosaur!" And after this, maybe they move onto being a girl regardless of whatever personal sex they are (For example; a lesbian who takes on very feminine traits). The disjunctions of experience are all affirmed, not at the same time, but at different times where one isn't privileged over another. "He does not abolish disjunction by identifying the contradictory elements by means of elaboration; instead he affirms it through a continuous overflight spanning an indivisible distance. He is not simply bisexual, or between the two, or intersexual. He is transsexual. He is trans-alivedead, trans-parentchild. He does not reduce two contraries to an identity of the same; he affirms their distance as that which relates the two as different." The key here is elaboration. Elaboration (as language) forms contradictory elements. The need to represent something (elaboration) forms contradictory elements instead of letting the pure flow of disjunctions happen. Disjunctions are affirmed through different times and different spaces that nonetheless are not different from each other (indivisible). This means that there are separations in formed experience for the schizophrenic, but the separations aren't elaborated on as separations (disjunctive syntheses flow in the neoma purely understood by Husserl in Ideas I). "Oh it's like this", not "It's not this." The schizophrenic is bisexual without knowing it and hence would be more accurate under the appellation of transsexuality. It knows no sex, it sees no difference. The schizophrenic doesn't roam back and forth between homosexuality/lesbianism and being-straight, they just don't care either way. The schizophrenic isn't out to "explore other options." For example, the schizophrenic isn't a girl who pretends to be a lesbian because she couldn't get any guys growing up, who when eventually gets a guy, has an epiphany that they're actually straight (to be sure, the epiphany is told to others as some sort of celebration). The schizophrenic is transsexual from the start and homosexual when oedipalization breaks through (the need for a value-life). Beyond sexuality, they are a parent, an injunctive parent even, and a son. At one time they roam the forests in a gaze of wonder, and at another they say "it's time to go home," and the parent and child never become formed as a parent or child for good. The distance between both is indivisible. They all stem from the body without organs. Singularities open up non-inclusion. "They are all inhabited by a faceless and transpositional subject." The schizophrenic is without personal identification. It's position as subject is beyond being a subject. It's subjectivity is absolutely free without consciousness of identity as contradiction. Beyond sexuality and the example of being a trans-parent and son, there is the schizophrenic God. There is God "as the master of the exclusions and restrictions that derive from the disjunctive syllogism, [contrasted with] an antichrist who is the prince of modifications, determining instead the passage of the subject through all possible predicates. I am God I am not God, I am God I am Man: it is not a matter of a synthesis that would go beyond the negative disjunctions of the derived reality, in an original reality of Man-God, but rather of an inclusive disjunction that carries out the synthesis itself in drifting from one term to another and following the distance between terms. Nothing is primal." By disjunctive syllogism we understand the logic of "A or B, it's not A, so it's B," meaning the logic of "either/or," process of elimination, everything that something is not; in other words, the exclusion function of oedipus whereby the presence of an answer is the "cure", the answer, the presence. This God, this logically-positivist God is the master of excluding a body from being everything that it is. It is western metaphysics, it's Aristotle. The schizophrenic God on the other hand is a "prince of modifications," it is Heraclitus. This God throws the subject through infinite possibilities. The schizophrenic God doesn't "see" disjunctions and then decide to go beyond them into a place where the disjunctions are no longer "seen." The schizophrenic God doesn't start off at "zero" and then want to get to a place where it throws being into a Heraclitean flux. It has no "originality," it doesn't exist in what's understood as "primal." God doesn't create Man in order to take it on a wild journey of infinite possibilities. Disjunctions always and already exist on a body without organs in different flows and different intensities that are all experienced on their own terms. Disjunctions drift into other disjunctions right when one disjunction becomes terminated. He lives and dies. "He is already the mother of a new humanity and can finally die." These all happens in an inclusive space of disjunctions, where the disjunctions are always being affirmed to drift into other disjunctions that will be affirmed. Yes, this, Yes this. Yes this.

It's this nature that D&G find on the body without organs, and it's this nature that they find to be oedipalized way before psychoanalysis, but becomes formalized as oedipus in psychoanalysis. Oedipus lets you know about your differentiations. Oedipus lets you know that you are a child, and that there is your mother, and over there is your father. You as the child, are not your mother or father, even if you drift off into those disjunctions by random occurrence, by spontaneous occurrence. Oedipus demands that you be different, that you be specific, and if you're not, you will "fall into the black night of the undifferentiated." You will be woman when you really are a man. You will be unmotivated when you really are a goal-setter . You will be crazy, when you really are sane. You will be undifferentiated, when you really are different. The dreams of the child are castrated in oedipus. I am now not a dinosaur, but someone who needs to get my homework done (no matter how shitty of a job I did). I am different, just the same way everyone else is different. There's a million mothers in the world. I'm not one of them though. There's a million mid-20 year-olds in the world though. I'm one of them. I'm different just like every single one of them. My dreams are castrated into Oedipus, into where I'm at right now. I am different, just like you, and it has to be this way. I'm not allowed to not be different,

No comments:

Post a Comment